World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

Science is in crisis. A product of our official culture, fraud, corruption and a scientific thought police continue to circumscribe academic evaluation, shackling the best scientists and maintaining a materialist gridlock on open-minded and multidisciplinary approaches.  Consequently, in many quarters, the state of science resembles an authoritarian religion where money and inflated academic egos dominate, rather than a quest for truth.

Capitalising on the Age of Reason firmly set in place by the Illuminism and “Enlightenment” of the 18th Century, the “scientific method” or “technique” grew out of Germany and Prussia of the 1800s embracing the theories of the new scientific rationalists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This was to inaugurate a new educational system never before seen. Children would become the nuts and bolts of the State, bludgeoning generations of young people into a rigid prison of rationale and reason. Feelings would be irrelevant.

Hegel was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age and the culmination of the German idealistic philosophy school of Immanuel Kant. Like the Prussian militarists who inspired utilitarian schooling so beloved of the corporatists, there was only one way to live and be – through the world of reason and a rejection of the heart as an organ of perception. To Hegel the state is the ideal of Absolute Reason where citizens gained their freedom from being subservient to the state. Hegel viewed the State through a lens of religious fascism where it: “… has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.” It is therefore unsurprising that both fascism and communism have their philosophical roots in Hegelianism and Illuminism – flag bearers of the present Global Establishment. [1]

To bring all this up-to-date we need to introduce another mechanistic thinker who was to provide a massive contribution to our understanding of behaviour which was absorbed into the cult of control in the West of the 20th Century. His name was Burrhus Frederic (“B.F.”) Skinner who took his cues from Ivan Pavlov’s research into temperament conditioning and involuntary reflex actions. A scientist who sincerely wanted his ideas to benefit humanity he nonetheless, fell into the belief trap that populations could be controlled by a positive reinforcement which was simply a concealed method of coercion. In fact, Skinner was an early technocrat in his thinking and believed in a utopia of science and technology that could control populations rather than encouraging free-will. He stated: “It is a mistake to suppose that the whole issue is how to free man. The issue is to improve the way in which he is controlled.”


A Clockwork Orange (1971) which drew heavily from the ideas behind behaviourism. Theatrical release poster by Bill Gold (wikipedia)

Skinner was Influenced by the Age of Reason and its advocates. His social contract was to be extended to include a scientific elite which would make sure that populations stayed within certain parameters set down by an agreed upon “scientific technique.” It is for that reason that he held with the belief that specialists as “reinforcers” should impose “codified contingencies” to ensure that people – as the instinctive machines he believed them to be – should follow prepared lines of behaviour just as rats in his experiments were encouraged to go down certain paths in a maze.

Skinner introduced us to the ideas of behaviour therapy which included his discoveries of operant conditioning, aversion therapy, and desensitisation. Operant conditioning involves the reinforcement of certain behaviour accompanied by a stimulus such as light or sound. Reinforcement depends on the frequency and occurrence of the response and what type of reinforcement mechanisms are found in the immediate environment. Skinner used rats to illustrate his thinking by using simple experiments with food and water as rewards. When a rat depressed a bar it was rewarded with food. Regardless of how the bar was depressed is irrelevant, operant conditioning shows that it is the frequency or rate at which the operation is carried out (how many times the bar is pressed within a given time and how rapidly) which determines how successful operant conditioning has been.

Aversion therapy is exactly as it sounds: the individual is exposed to a stimulus alongside some form of reinforcement discomfort which is designed to create an aversion to the initial desire. This technique was used in the past to try and cure homosexuality or alcoholism. It was also graphically featured in Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clock-work Orange (1971) as a means of mind control. Skinner’s experiments with rats and pigeons were extraordinarily instructive and offered new insights into how our environment shapes our behaviour. However, he wanted to graduate to humans in a bid to find the perfect automaton, so he took the liberty of using his own daughter. (We don’t know what his mother had to say about this of course). The baby was placed him in a large, sound-proof box with one window where the temperature was carefully controlled. “The Skinner Box” as it would later be known, would go on to be used in many laboratories so that reinforcement and operant conditioning studies could be reliably employed. Skinner was untroubled by the use of his daughter in the experimentation proclaiming that: “crying and fussing could always be stopped by slightly lowering the temperature” and since the box was sound-proofed, everyone was a winner according to Skinner, as “… soundproofing also protects the family from the baby.”

Desensitisation describes a psychological technique whereby the subject is placed in a relaxed and suggestive state and exposed to images and /or accompanying sounds which are designed to evoke mild stress or anxiety. The images gradually become stronger in content until finally the image is so strong that the person shows no anxiety. He has been slowly desensitised to feeling associated with that particular imagery. As the reader can appreciate these methods induce both positive and negative results based entirely on the intent of the experimenter. Furthermore, he discovered that the level and frequency of the rewards determined how the required behaviour could be maintained.

Skinner at the Harvard Psychology Department, c. 1950 (wikipedia)

It was a breath of fresh air for those in Elite circles and enthusiastically incorporated into the psychological warfare of the emerging National Security State. The emphasis on instincts  espoused by Freud, the social engineering modalities of the Frankfurt School and the biological determinism of humans and life itself as nothing more than components of a machine all provided grist to the mill which psychopaths used to keep spinning their reality. Since Skinner’s main focus was developing a society that could be controlled, his contribution in the understanding of how behaviour operated in the modern world was seen by the Pathocrats in this context. The behaviourists were welcomed into the fold and put to work which has led to behaviourism as one of the most accepted and revered forms of psychology in authoritarian perception, not least because ethical science seems to be inimical to its applications. Changing behaviour and belief is vital to changing society with – and preferably without – consent.

Since B.F. Skinner’s experiments, aversive stimulation and knowledge of operant conditioning has been explored through the Cold War to the War on Terror, MKULTRA to the PSYOPS in Media propaganda and the black ops of regime change. Society itself is the new Skinner Box and official culture is both the cause and effect. With the advent of mass surveillance and SMART society, with an ever more integrated functionality from infrastructure to social networks, the behaviourists ethos of managed reflexes has evolved into new technocratic blueprints of managed societies and the ability to carefully control both the inner and outer environments of the human mind.

Perhaps the best representation of elite thinking on the “science technique” to shape society came through the intellectual leviathan that was British philosopher, educational theoretician and mathematician Bertrand Arthur William Russell. The mythology surrounding this man ensured that he was an ardent humanist, socialist and advocate of peace. His controversial views on the future of society have been largely air-brushed from the rose-coloured worship which periodically takes place in the halls of academia and the peace movement. Yet, there is ample evidence that he was one of the most scheming Machiavellian figures of the 20th Century who knew exactly how to play the public and leaders alike with his misanthropic views.  As Lyndon La Rouche summarised in his  1994 Schiller Institute article Russell’s mindset incorporated:  (1) a racism as virulent as Adolf Hitler’s; (2) a feudal-aristocratic socialist’s Ruskin-like hatred for modern European civilization; and (3) a utopian’s obsessive commitment to bringing about civilization’s descent into a parody of pre-Renaissance feudalism, or sometimes even pre-civilized barbarism.”

Russell channelled his beliefs into the Pugwash Movement which he founded in London July 9, 1955 using the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. This led to the first meeting in 1957 attended by many renowned scientists. He received many awards throughout his career and was highly influential in Elite circles. The impetus for creating Pugwash was drawn from his wish to give a scientific justification for world government by using the threat of the Cold War as pretext. Indeed, in his famous treatise: The Impact of Science on Society (1953) he makes his position clear regarding the nature of science and its purpose: “I do not believe that dictatorship is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” [2]Whether the members of the movement held exactly the same beliefs as Russell remains to be seen. But as we know, there was certainly strong mass appeal for such ideas, Russell being one of a number of great minds to give vent to his authoritarian sentiments.

Russell believed that the empires of the past lost control over their dominions due to an inefficient social programming which should have been in embedded in the development of the centralised structure. He claims that the “Scientific technique” had removed this limitation. The future would be open for the establishment of a successful world government (Empire) if a “unifying principle” could be found that superseded the fear of war: “… unification under a single world government is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race.” [3]

While explicating the evils of the Soviet era he clearly saw this as the forerunner of a more streamlined and cohesive social structure where: “… the very evils of the system help to give it stability. Apart from external pressure, there is no reason why such a regime should not last for a very long time.” [4]

As is the case with such a mind-set, it is always the rabble-rousing masses that are the cause of the chaos rather than the institution and creation of strictures that develop from it. Or as Russell mentions, “evil passions in human minds …” that stand in the way of a World State. The philosopher wishes to replace one society and dictatorship driven by the fear of war with another that would make war unnecessary due to the dumbed down compliance of the ordinary man-made stupidity. War would disappear but so would the basic human condition of love, creativity, freedom and spirituality, though this would only be a right and fitting state of affairs according to Russell, since the Elite were eugenically destined to dispense these qualities amongst the plebeians through a strictly behaviourist and Darwinist belief-set:

“War has been, throughout history, the chief source of social cohesion; and since science began, it has been the strongest incentive to technical progress. Large groups have a better chance of victory than small ones, and therefore the usual result of war is to make States larger. […] There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” [5]

Could it be that these same “passions that inspire hate and fear” are primarily due to the very centralised systems Russell intends to enforce on the rest of us? No doubt we have the very manifestations of just such an “enemy, actual or potential” in the form of the War on Terror and false flag operations to keep the public allegiance to the State. The existence of an enemy has always been fabricated by authorities in order to maintain their power base, a state of affairs that became progressively ponerised once that door was opened. Russell’s solution to the creation of that “loyalty” is not by force but through a type of education that would result in a populace made suitably docile and unthinking. He understands very well the importance of mass psychology and believes it to be “immensely important” and “politically useful”. If Russell’s scientific dictatorship is to work, then modern methods of propaganda must target education. Instead of the threat of war we now have the children as the target of indoctrination. Mass psychology is to be used to this end:

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey. [6]

We see exactly the same vision of children as products envisaged by the American National Education Board and the Rockefeller mind-set where children’s minds are there to be beaten into shape so that they conform to a carefully prepared aversive conditioning. Is it not interesting to see the same perception appearing from a representative of the British intelligentsia bridging the same belief in the minds of industrialists and Fabians more than half a century before? Then of course, we have the same pattern appearing in the forces behind Illuminism and the outgrowth of Empires which underlie the sub-stratum of psychopathy as the unchanging progenitor.

It seems Russell is unable to step outside his own philosophical trap that State and science offers a panacea for human evolution despite the very presence of government always indicating otherwise. The comprehensive overthrow of freedom and the individual mind for peace and the “greater good” is in evidence once again:

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte [German Philosopher] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”  [7]  [Emphasis mine]

Now, if you are blinking your eyes at these statements and thinking perhaps such a noble laureate is not advocating such a position and is merely indicating a future state of affairs, you are mistaken. Remember that the goal of Bertrand Russell and others of his kind has always been the imposition of a scientific World State determined by an Elite. Any intellectual philosophising around that point with the accompanying nuggets of undoubted wisdom mean nothing when set against the framework of what is an authoritarian desire finally let off its leash and buffered by the security of his intellectual status.

Russell’s vision aligns closely with Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World (1932) which describe developments in reproductive technology and sleep-learning that combine to change society. The scientific technique is exacted so precisely that it produces mechanized human beings who are sealed into a tightly controlled artificial environment, separate from nature and the “perils” of intellectual creativity or free thinking. Science is only used as medium for social control just as Skinner and Russell advocate, where dehumanisation will ensure ignorance and weakness, which will thus ensure the end of war.

The framework of science under pathocratic control, sterilizes the natural rhythms of life, replaced with prescriptive values which have little to do with freedom or free-will. It is interesting that science – perceived as an entirely rational subject – can be employed to indoctrinate irrational inclinations. While it is science that the State uses to control its citizens, it is also science that brought about the need for totalitarian control in the first place. The degradation of normal people under the scientific dictatorship will be inevitable so that threats from creative individuals who can offer alternative visions would be inhibited, as is the case in any Pathocracy. And it is here that we see the same process occurring under the “democracies” of many political and academic institutions of the United Kingdom, America and other European countries. This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue to be a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”.

As Andrew Łobaczewski observed, when ponerology becomes skilfully popularised science, it will help nations to develop immunity. Science can serve as liberator or prisoner of human consciousness, something which seems to have escaped Bertrand’s ambitious scope for world government. As Huxley wrote in BNW: “… we have our stability to think of. We don’t want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.” [8]


Bertrand Arthur William Russell

This brand of vertical collectivism demands the erosion of national sovereignty necessary to usher in global governance, the start of which begins with the introduction of economic unions (European Union, Africa Union, Asia Union etc.) that will later be interlocked into one Global Union under the hammer of closer world integration. Russell shows an idealistic belief that in order to prevent the “barbarism” of war conducted by nation states: “Means must be found of subjecting the relations of nations to the rule of law, so that a single nation will no longer be, as at present, the judge in its own cause,” and where “… national liberty will have to be effectively restrained.” While preferring not to mention the obvious manipulations by industrialists and Zionist interventions, he goes on to state that once Russia and the United States have come under effective control of collectivism where:

“… either by victory or by an obvious military superiority, the preponderant Power can establish a single Authority over the whole world, and thus make future wars impossible. At first, this Authority will in certain regions, be based on force, but if the Western nations are in control, force will as soon as possible give way to consent. When that has been achieved, the most difficult of world problems will have been solved, and science can become wholly beneficent.” [9]

Of course, we must place our trust in Western nations and the rule of law and science as the beneficent arbiters of reality for the masses and bow down to their imposed “welfare.” The best answer for Russell is a Global Authority since he is a man cast from the authoritarian mould. Similarly, ensuring the comprehensive dilution of the genetic stock of normal human beings must be implemented and parallel methods of population control introduced through ostensibly benign reasons. Hence, the emphasis on the population explosion, its causes and effects.

Over 40 years later the same theme is in evidence, this time from one time US foreign policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). Brzezinski, CFR and Trilateral Commission member eloquently offers the same solution for American Hegmony under cover of United Nations protocols.

He states:

“In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945.” [10]

The overwhelming imperative is always global governance whether for ideology, power, greed, or psychopathic propagation. If we follow the beliefs of the Russells and Rockefellers of this world the kind of financial-scientific feudalism they so desperately desire will be very soul-less environments indeed and is precisely why they will always break down. As he exclaims: “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique,” which means an array of suitable scientifically-based techniques must be found to ensure the resulting education will reflect their minority mind-set with all its psychological anomalies. Such people have no problems experimenting in altering the genetic structure of animals, plants and Nature itself in order to dominate and control rather than to work with or co-create. It is inevitable that under a Pathocracy and the knowledge of the Human Genome, the experimental bar on humans will rise, both in secrecy and in public.

It is interesting that like Rockefeller, Stalinist Russia is so often the example in Russell’s mind:

“When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war – until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about.” [11]

And no doubt this “scientific breeding” to produce only the best and strongest will adhere to the same “beastly” precepts that gave rise to the legion of authoritarian principles down through the ages. But Russell doesn’t seem to be worried about that since his white, Oxford-educated Anglo-Saxon genes are beyond reproach and can only lead to a scientific destiny wholly in line with the same kind of British Empire perfection which so captured Cecil Rhodes.

Let’s remember what Russell wrote about education and his regime for the compliant child where: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” And finally, the justification for applying the vertical collectivist dream: those totalitarian governments were not so bad … They just needed the right quality of intellectual steerage. Let’s not be too hasty. Russell may not be advocating explicitly such a state of affairs but by inference he means to suggest that such “atrocities” are nevertheless highly practical for an emerging World State and encouraging maximum stability:

“A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said – I do not know with what truth – to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.

Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato’s Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)

To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us… The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill.” [12] [Emphasis mine]

Neither democracy nor “The Rights of Man” are sufficient to avoid such “scientific horrors” only a World State determined by socialist principles. A world government with psychopaths at the helm would revel in just such a future.

Bertrand Russell was briefly a member of the Fabian society and resigned over the issue of “entente” or alliances that could lead to war. However, liberalism, socialism and pacifism were just labels for Russell stating: “I have never been any of these things, in any profound sense.” [13]It was his reaction against idealism and his work as a logician which defined his distaste for war and classical totalitarianism. Ironically, he merely advocated another form of dictatorship, its only difference being that it was inverted. He conforms to the Fabian worldview that society must be gradually “shattered to bits” on the anvil of socialism in order to be reformed into a world where a global scientific elite would dominate. Russell is an intellectual genius and knew exactly what he is saying. And though he includes profound insights into the nature of democracy and education his disdain for the common man and his myopic view of science used to dominate and enforce is crystal clear throughout. Though he falls short of recommending certain Dystopian conclusions his vision for enforcing peace through a scientific Elite is the defining reason for his book. And from an undoubted conscientious objector no doubt he really believed his own perceived altruism as so many do. All the same, they lead us down the path of destruction by offering an antidote that is merely more of the same.

One of the first targets of an emerging Pathocracy is within education and in particular the sciences. Łobaczewski had direct experience of this kind of “scientific” induction which was carried out under state Communism in Poland. Based on specific psychological knowledge only the psychopath could harbour and use, he described the process of personality disintegration which occurred as “transpersonification” dispensed from University professor as new tools of the State. According to Łobaczewski, these professors “… knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.” [14] *

It is the intellectual spellbinders from the Neo-Conservative movement to the Fabian and corporate libertarians of the past and present who act through the MSM as conduits for transpersonification and ponerogenesis. We place highly intelligent men like Russell on the pedestal of laudability, whilst disavowing their toxic legacy which can only encourage the receptivity of authoritarian minds. Such complacency in resisting seductive beliefs dressed up in surrounding wisdom sets up a verdant psychic landscape for future pathogens to flourish and should never be underestimated. Learning the language of psychopathic beliefs is vital, as they will inevitably give rise to state-mandated actions which have been given the veneer of time-honoured respectability.


* Drawn from Łobaczewski’s own experiences as a student in Communist Poland, a detailed explanation of the transpersonification process as seen through the scientific academia of the time. The extract is taken from the introduction in Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.

 Pathocracy and “Transpersonification”

An extract from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes By Andrew M. Łobaczewski, edited by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:

May the reader please imagine a very large hall in an old Gothic university building. Many of us gathered there early in our studies in order to listen to the lectures of outstanding philosophers and scientists. We were herded back there – under threat – the year before graduation in order to listen to the indoctrination lectures which recently had been introduced.

Someone nobody knew appeared behind the lectern and informed us that he would now be the professor. His speech was fluent, but there was nothing scientific about it: he failed to distinguish between scientific and ordinary concepts and treated borderline imaginings as though it were wisdom that could not be doubted. For ninety minutes each week, he flooded us with Naïve, presumptuous paralogistics and a pathological view of human reality. We were treated with contempt and poorly controlled hatred. Since fun-poking could entail dreadful consequences, we had to listen attentively and with the utmost gravity.

The grapevine soon discovered this person’s origins. He had come from a Cracow suburb and attended high school, although no one knew if he had graduated. Anyway, this was the first time he had crossed university portals, and as a professor, at that!

“You can’t convince anyone this way!” we whispered to each other. “It’s actually propaganda directed against themselves.” But after such mind-torture, it took a long time for someone to break the silence.

We studied ourselves, since we felt something strange had taken over our minds and something valuable was leaking away irretrievably. The world of psychological reality and moral values seemed suspended as if in a chilly fog. Our human feeling and student solidarity lost their meaning, as did patriotism and our old established criteria. So we asked each other, “are you going through this too”? Each of us experienced this worry about his own personality and future in his own way. Some of us answered the questions with silence. The depth of these experiences turned out to be different for each individual.

We thus wondered how to protect ourselves from the results of this “indoctrination”. Teresa D. made the first suggestion: Let’s spend a weekend in the mountains. It worked. Pleasant company, a bit of joking, then exhaustion followed by deep sleep in a shelter, and our human personalities returned, albeit with a certain remnant. Time also proved to create a kind of psychological immunity, although not with everyone. Analyzing the psychopathic characteristics of the “professor’s” personality proved another excellent way of protecting one’s own psychological hygiene.

You can just imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the “professor’s” chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right of them. They gave the impression of possessing some secret knowledge; we were only their former colleagues, still believing what those “professors of old” had taught us. We had to be careful of what we said to them. These former colleagues soon joined the Party.

Who were they, what social groups did they come from, what kind of students and people were they? How and why did they change so much in less than a year? Why did neither I nor a majority of my fellow students succumb to this phenomenon and process? Many such questions fluttered through our heads then. It was in those times, from those questions, observations and attitudes that the idea was born that this phenomenon could be objectively studied and understood; an idea whose greater meaning crystallized with time.

Many of us newly graduated psychologists participated in the initial observations and reflections, but most crumbled away in the face of material or academic problems. Only a few of that group remained; so the author of this book may be the last of the Mohicans.

It was relatively easy to determine the environments and origins of the people who succumbed to this process, which I then called “transpersonification”. They came from all social groups, including aristocratic and fervently religious families, and caused a break in our student solidarity to the order of some 6 %. The remaining majority suffered varying degrees of personality disintegration which gave rise to individual searching for the values necessary to find ourselves again; the results were varied and sometimes creative.

Even then, we had no doubts as to the pathological nature of this “transpersonification” process, which ran similar but not identical in all cases. The duration of the results of this phenomenon also varied. Some of these people later became zealots. Others later took advantage of various circumstances to withdraw and re-establish their lost links to the society of normal people. They were replaced. The only constant value of the new social system was the magic number of 6 %.

We tried to evaluate the talent level of those colleagues who had succumbed to this personality-transformation process, and reached the conclusion that, on average, it was slightly lower than the average of the student population. Their lesser resistance obviously resided in other bio-psychological features which were most probably qualitatively heterogeneous.

I found that I had to study subjects bordering on psychology and psychopathology in order to answer the questions arising from our observations; scientific neglect in these areas proved an obstacle difficult to overcome. At the same time, someone guided by special knowledge apparently vacated the libraries of anything we could have found on the topic; books were indexed, but not physically present.

Analyzing these occurrences now in hindsight, we could say that the “professor” was dangling bait over our heads, based on specific psychological knowledge. He knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.

This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue being a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”. When it becomes skillfully popularized science, it will help nations to develop immunity. But none of us knew this at the time.

Nevertheless, we must admit that in demonstrating the properties of this process to us in such a way as to force us into in-depth experience, the professor helped us understand the nature of the phenomenon in a larger scope than many a true scientific researcher participating in this work in other less direct ways.


As a youth, I read a book about a naturalist wandering through the Amazon-basin wilderness. At some moment a small animal fell from a tree onto the nape of his neck, clawing his skin painfully and sucking his blood. The biologist cautiously removed it — without anger, since that was its form of feeding — and proceeded to study it carefully. This story stubbornly stuck in my mind during those very difficult times when a vampire fell onto our necks, sucking the blood of an unhappy nation.

Maintaining the attitude of a naturalist, while attempting to track the nature of macro-social phenomenon in spite of all adversity, insures a certain intellectual distance and better psychological hygiene in the face of horrors that might otherwise be difficult to contemplate. Such an attitude also slightly increases the feeling of safety and furnishes an insight that this very method may help find a certain creative solution. This requires strict control of the natural, moralizing reflexes of revulsion, and other painful emotions that the phenomenon provokes in any normal person when it deprives him of his joy of life and personal safety, ruining his own future and that of his nation. Scientific curiosity therefore becomes a loyal ally during such times.



[1] p. 133; Philosophy of Right, “The State”, By Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1821 Trad. S. W. Dyde, 2008. Cosimo, Google Print, p. 133.
[2] p.57; The Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell, Published by Routledge; New edition edition, 1985 | ISBN-10: 041510906X
[3] Ibid. (p.27)
[4] Ibid. (p.51)
[5] Ibid. (p.27)
[6] Ibid. (p.31)
[7] Ibid. (p.52)
[8] Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932).
[9] op. cit. Russell (p.97)
[10] op. cit. Brzezinski (1997)
[11] op. cit. Russell, (p.29)
[12] Ibid. (p.53)
[13] p. 260; The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, By Bertrand Russell. Published by Routledge January 1950
[14] op. cit. Lobacwezki (p..27)


World Revolution III: The Courage to Critique

“Deluded people. You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism, and against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, or ignorance against light! … Every species of error which afflicts the earth, every half-baked idea, every invention serves to fit the doctrines of the Illuminati …The aim is universal domination.”

Marquis de Luchet Essay on the Sect of the Illuminati January, 1789.

The Marquis De Luchet was initially in favour of the French Revolution until presumably joined the dots regarding his friend the Comte de Mirabeau and realised all was not well. He wasn’t the only one who thought the Revolution had been hijacked away from genuine grassroots uprising. Discerning politicians in America and Britain were also sounding the alarm, but these were lone voices in a sea of romantic resolve. The Irish philosopher and Member of Parliament Edmund Burke * issued stern warnings during the onset of the Revolution and incurred the wrath of the public and many of his colleagues as a result.


               Edmund Burke

Burke was an expert on change. He knew intuitively that radical change, too swift and sweeping, frequently led to the very same dynamics of tyranny. While he had given his support to the American Revolution, the causes of which in his opinion, were of an entirely different nature, he felt it duty bound to resist supporting the French people for reasons that will be become apparent.

Much like the media of today, hit pieces appeared in the press which were controlled by Illuminati agents hiding behind the cover of liberal sentiments. Suddenly, Burke’s once popular standing was swiftly reduced to rubble after his publication of Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). The treatise is now widely seen as the statesman’s defining moment for its erudition, prescience and wisdom. It consisted of a correspondence with “a Paris gentleman” a French aristocrat named Charles-Jean-François Depont who had asked Burke for his impressions of the Revolution. This resulted in two letters, the latter of which became Reflections.

As a protestant and a Whig, his conservatism was just and represented the benevolent aspect of a capitalism that grew into something quite different in this century. Liberty and power were entwined and represented a force for good or for ill depending on who was at the helm. A cardinal rule for Burke and for those of us paying attention to politics subsequently, is to recognise: “… in situations where those who appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly not be the real movers.” [1] Early on in the midst of Revolution euphoria he saw the much trumpeted “liberty” as counterfeit and cautioned people to see the Revolution for what it was – a carefully engineered coup against certain sections of society. (Such a plea for caution was levelled by many observers at the onset of Barack Obama’s election both in terms of the scale of expenditure involved and the “yes we can” Obamamania marketing which ensued. Obviously, not much has changed.

Burke wrote:

When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed air, is plainly broke loose; but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one.

Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver, and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. [2] [Emphasis mine]

And he was right.

 Delacroix, Eugene Liberty Leading The People, 1830 , Paris, Louvre

Liberty Leading The People, Eugene Delacroix, 1830, Paris, Louvre

Burke was also acutely aware of the significance of the French Revolution that could remake Europe and even the world under tyrannical lines: “It appears to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe.” He was fully cognizant of the nature of the usurpers of power that were inspired by such thinkers as Rousseau and Voltaire who were avowed rationalists and believers in a ruling Elite – the forerunners a Hegelian World Order. Many of the the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment pioneers represented dangerous abstractions to traditionalists like Burke who knew that society was a complex organism that did not operate on simplistic laws which benefited a ruling class grounded in man’s power rather than God’s. He had no time for those who believed in authoritarian rule whether a divinely appointed monarchic Establishment or an Elite ruling class. Similarly, if a government was oppressive then the people should oppose it, therefore, rather than open revolution he preferred gradual constitutional reform.

Burke was well aware of the Order of Illuminati often referring to them as the “Philosophe sect” in many of his writings. He criticised the Enlightenment’s “social contract” which was a socio-political theory based on Goethe’s Faustian pact. One has to have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to give up one’s freedoms in exchange for what little rights may be left even though they may have been slowly eroded down to nothing, a process playing out in the West today, particularly in Britain and the United States. This surrendering to authority may be a Presidential court of law or the consensus of a majority. Either way, it is a backdoor to tyranny which is exactly why the Illuminati promoted this line of thinking.

The social contract was very much en vogue at the time. Burke granted credence to the idea that society is a contract: “But it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature” rather, it is: “a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” He makes a pointed reference to the cold, rationalism of the Illuminists and the beliefs of materialism, deism and atheism that they were encouraging. He makes a case for the complexities of history and the links that humans created over time with a rich tapestry of social values which cannot be suddenly erased in favour of something perceived as socially responsible and harmonious, least of all by a sect which represented the “public” image of a far greater threat than even these lone voices realised.

Burke’s views also differed from Thomas Hobbes’ theory which effectively saw man and women as numbers on an economic chart to move around at will presaging the game theorists of later years. And here one can see why the Irish philosopher was so fiercely ridiculed on orders of Illuminists: he was the polar opposite of their ideals and precisely what was needed in large numbers to counter their plans.


giloriglil.jpg“The Reign of Terror” commenced from 1793 until 1794 under the dictatorship of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobin mob. There is a general consensus from past statistics of the Terror, the causes of which came from the Orwellian-sounding Committee of Public Safety and The Revolutionary Tribunal and which stood at approximately 16,000 and 41,000 deaths. Historian Dr Marisa Linton of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Kingston University quoted a figure of 16,594 death sentences and a total which excluded those “… that died without formal death sentences imposed in a court of law.” And further: “Many perished in overcrowded and unsanitary prisons while awaiting trial. Many of those who died in the civil wars and federalist revolts did not have their deaths officially recorded.” [3]

However, Linton continues:

“… recent estimates of the number of deaths in the Vendée have caused historians to revise that figure considerably. One historian, Pierre Chaunu, spoke of the Vendée with deliberate provocation as a ‘genocide’ and claimed that 500,000 rebels had died. More realistic estimates, such as that by Jean-Clément Martin, suggest up to 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans met their deaths in a war in which both sides suffered appalling atrocities. Another group that was decimated by the unleashing of the Terror was that of the revolutionaries themselves. Successive revolutionary factions fell victim to the Terror that, in many cases, they had themselves helped to orchestrate.” [4]

Apart from other methods of execution such as hanging, firing squad and even drowning, the gruesome, mechanical evil of the guillotine sliced through the necks of anyone who disagreed with the Revolution. It was the manner in which this “social uprising” was conducted which cast a dark stain across its avowed principles. Many victims were also set upon and murdered by death squads which roamed the cities of France often as out-sourced mercenaries. As a microcosm of the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi holocaust, the English Witch-hunts or Stalinist rule, Revolutionary France was not a place to be for any true progressive, peasant or aristocrat. Many were murdered through rumour, accusation or the denouncement of a business competitor or creditor even if entirely innocent.[5]


Anonymous print: “It is dreadful but necessary” (C’est affreux mais necessaire”) from the Journal d’Autre Monde 1794

Of the thousands to be condemned to the guillotine 8 percent (1031) were aristocrats, 6 percent (674) clergy, 14 percent (2923) middle class, and a whopping 72 percent (7878) were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion or rebellion.[6] This tells you something important about the nature of the “People’s Revolution” in itself, namely, it was a text book example of despotic rule.

The Committee for Public Safety – a classic example of paramoralistic wording – allowed revolutionary tribunals to convict people without hearing evidence and which was called the Law of Prairial. In September 1793, the Convention passed a law called the Law of Suspects where the “public safety” actually meant people could now be put in prison without trial: “Suspects shall be locked up …. The proof necessary to convict enemies … can be any kind of evidence … If proof already exists there need be no further witnesses …The penalty for all offences under the law of revolutionary tribunal is death.” [7] It didn’t really matter who you were or what you did, once in the mouth of the machine there was little anyone could do. Very often French folk were condemned to death and executed the same day.

The following examples indicate the arbitrary nature of accusations which resulted in death:

Jean-Baptiste Henry, aged 18, journeyman tailor, convicted of having sawn down a tree of liberty, executed 6th September, 1793.

Francois Bertrand, aged 37, publican, convicted of having provided the defenders of the country with sour wine, condemned and executed the same day.

Henriette Francoise Marboeuf, aged 55, convicted of having hoped for the arrival of the Austrians and Prussians and of keeping food for them, condemned to death and executed the same day. [8]

As the terror came to gradual end in July 1794, revolutionary surveillance committees (Comité de surveillance révolutionnaire) with oversight by district committees continued the formula of repression for many years after.

There is ample evidence to suggest the eradication of counter-revolutionaries was part of a larger policy of depopulating France of “enemies of the people” which meant everyone who was not of the same mind. Author Nesta Webster suggested that the almost unimaginable slaughter of hundreds of thousands of French citizens during the Terror was indeed a deliberate campaign of genocide, an 18th Century example of an Elite belief which is so prominent and popular in political, academic and UN-led institutions today. Though conceived as part of the Committee’s plan, it has the classic hallmarks of the occult Establishment clique and so many World State believers: in order to return to an Eden ruled by a superior class of demi-Gods or Olympians a periodic culling of the rabble was necessary by whatever means available at the time.

As Steve Bonta describes in his article on effectively “Two Revolutions”:

The mad Marat, for whatever reason, had an idee fixe that demanded the massacre of 260,000 victims. But his blood lust was soon surpassed by his depraved “democratic” confreres. Jean Bon St. Andre averred that France’s population of 25 million “must be reduced by more than half.” Collot d’Herbois declared it must be reduced to 10 million. Carrier insisted only 6 million should survive. Guffoy said 5 million, whilst Robespierre is reported to have said that a population of 2 million would be more than enough. “Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not regenerate her after our manner,” declared Carrier. He and his confederates proceeded to do just that. After their abominable massacres in La Verdee, the revolutionists proudly reported back to the Convention in Paris, “we have left nothing behind us but ashes and piles of corpses.” All of this a century and a half before the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other 20th-century genocidal dictators made mass extermination a jaded political cliché. [9]

Bonta shows us that the reality of an Age of Enlightenment was in fact a quality of “illumination” which set alight only certain aspects of human endeavour in the modern age. Moreover, it’s rapid descent into destruction showed it’s shadow side in dramatic fashion. It was: “… a Revolution that began with a proud rejection of Deity, and worship of the State, turned into a hideous, blood-soaked parody of civilization, where technology and reason were applied to mass murder in the name of enlightened social engineering.” This set the stage for a fractal replication within a Western geo-political context.

Indeed, does this not describe the United States and NATO expansionism of the last fifty years?

Once again, the Jacobin Club was host to a surfeit of brutal psychopaths more than willing to take on the blood-letting. Sensing predation in the air, sniffing out victims with a super-natural instinct, another pattern of unrelenting horror was st in motion, allowing their true selves to manifest with impunity since their actions were fully mandated by the authorities. Sadistic individuals like Jean Paul Marat and his army of “Marats” or “Mulattos” were at the forefront of this mass murder, a logical result of authoritarian followers and essential psychopaths being given – quite literally – a free Reign. Marat was only among a number of anti-human individuals who undertook their tasks with extraordinary relish and were deemed useful for suppressing dissent and revolt against the Convention. Massacres and mass executions began to appear on a scale that harked back to the decimation of Cathar credents by the Inquisition in Languedoc.

Of particular note was one Jean-Baptiste Carrier who became notorious for for creating a variety of horrific ways for victims to be put to death. One method which he favoured on more than one occasion was to cram large numbers of people into boats with trap doors in the floors which he ordered sent out into the Loire to be sunk. This manner of mass death was frequently employed against the clergy whom he hated with a passion and in one instance exclaimed: “I have never laughed so much as when I saw the grimaces those priests made as they died.” So many bodies were floating in the rivers of France that it became a health problem and drinking was prohibited.

Hundreds of prisoners were also lined up in fields and summarily shot by the National Guard; anti-revolutionaries – which sometimes numbered many hundreds – were mown down by fusillades and whole cities ransacked; children were clubbed, run through with sabres and shot en masse, a particular activity close to Carrier’s heart.

Perhaps no other city suffered as much as Nantes. It was almost entirely emptied of people who were then starved in its prisons, shot to death, guillotined and cut down in their homes on orders of Carrier and his minions. Special drains were installed in the Place de la Revolution in Paris to cope with the torrents of blood from the guillotine.


“True Believers” of the Reign of Terror: (left) Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre (top right) Jean Paul Marat (bottom right) Jean-Baptiste Carrier

As various strains of anti-social pathologies take hold and subsequently elevated to positions of influence over ordinary men and women, large-scale psychological trauma and /or genocide on a macro-social scale is the inevitable result. Sophisticated ideals and morals are swiftly torn away and discarded like confetti, rapidly overtaken by the true purpose of a Revolution of this nature: political strategy thought up and carried out with psychopathic brutality. “The end justifies the means” is the mantra of the Elite Pathocrat where all is permitted for the cause of rending flesh from the the conscience of the normal psyche.

The parallels of pathology between the “Reign of Terror” and the “Red Terror” and even the evolution of the “War on Terror” appear to come from the same source. Just as Carrier enrolled companies of criminals or “mulattos”, the same dynamics were followed by Leninists troops as they were formed during the Communistic Terror in Hungary and by agent Trotsky who created terrorist troops as well as the Chinese gangs in Russia. Russian writer Alexsi Kuprin, questioned how it was possible that such a: “… bilious and dyspeptic chemist, anarchist, spy and plotter, whose speeches are full of such phrases as ‘roast on a slow fire’, ‘strangle’, ‘inundate with blood’, ‘cut off their heads’, should be seized by a blind fate and placed in the seat of power, instead of ending his days as a ‘sadist’ in a ward for violent lunatics?” [10]

In societies dominated by a rising tide of Pathocracy such people become valued political tools who find their natural place within the various tributaries of pathology, cloaking themselves in differing garbs of beliefs and ideals.

As writer George Rivers-Pitt states:

“Robespierre and Marat, like their ardent admirers, Lenin and AS at the present day, were animated by the same noble vision, not to relieve present distress and injustice by legislation, but only to annihilate all existing conditions, and “to exterminate all classes of the community except ‘the people’ over whom they hoped to rule supreme”. […] In their vision of the ‘New Birth of Society’, it is the blood of the Caesarean section they hope to practise on the expiring mother society, not the fate of the offspring which is their chief concern. […]Now that the terrorist period appears to have burned itself out to a very great extent in Russia, it is well that we should realise that it was an essential and deliberately designed phase of the Bolshevik plan, and that, as it was manifested with the same maniacal ferocity, wholesale butchery and bestiality, in Hungary, so would it be an inevitable prelude to any successful attempt to establish the same regime in any other European country. Mob licence and destruction would be encouraged and tolerated only as a means to preparing the way for the new dictators and for placing them in power.”  [11]

The vast upsurge of revolutionary ideas which led to the Great Terror needed anti-human individuals to facilitate a framework of control whereby such unbridled desires could be exercised against the populations without resistance and where sadism manifested across the whole psychopathic spectrum. This is essentially what systematic and organised atrocity means for those who perpetrate such deeds – a pleasure that matches sexual gratification. In the sacking and plunder of Toulouse in South-Western France, 19th century author of semi-fictional Cathar accounts Maurice Magre intuited such a contagion that stimulates and appeals to the lowest instincts in man and a natural state of psychopathy when the right conditions are in place:

“I had always believed that the affinity for theft and the desire for riches were at the roots of war. I realised that they were futile. The procession of women is the propelling force that pushes men to fight. The only thing the soldiers were talking about was the beautiful women they were going to take from the conquered cities … something akin to a sexual hallucination raged like a ghost in the back of everyone’s gaze.” [12]

The ceremonial psychopathy of Illuminism permitted such ponerological influences to emerge unhindered and driven towards a specific plan. The huge fire of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian feeling was lit and fanned by the members of the Illuminati in order to begin the eradication of religion itself. It was made more radical by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar in the same year, perfectly in line with Illuminati designs. This resulted in a swift and systematic campaign drawn from a number of disparate groups which popped up from 1789 – 1801 until the signing of the Concordat which allowed some measure of civil status to return for Catholicism in France. It was a “Cult of Reason” that decimated not just Catholic institutions but any groups, Churches or organisations under the Christian faith; a veritable microcosm of Communist Russia. For example, a 1793 law made all non-juring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight. (Rather like those suspected of being Al-Qaeda can now be assassinated without any rights whatsoever).

Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du Jacobinisme (Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism) a four volume book published by French Jesuit priest, Abbé Augustin Barruel, proved to be a vindication of Edmund Burke’s warnings. The book was published in French in 1797-78 and translated into English in 1799. Although considered as a founding document for a right-wing or conservative interpretation of the French Revolution, this only serves to undermine the central premise and narrow down the critique to a “left-right” discourse. There are facts at work here that transcend the superficial question of whether someone has a political axe to grind.


French polemicist Augustin Barruel (1741-1820)

Barruel outlined the Illuminist conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy, religion and aristocratic society in Europe, a plot that was “one continuous chain of cunning, art, and seduction” carried out by a conglomeration of philosophes, freemasons, and Illuminati members. Burke wrote to Barruel clearly impressed by the book, seeing it as a vindication of his own views: “I cannot easily express to you how much I am instructed and delighted by the first volume of your History of Jacobinism,” he wrote, mentioning: “… the most judicial regularity and exactness …” of his documents and source materials. Most interesting of all is Burkes admission that he knew: “… personally five of your principal conspirators; and I can undertake to say from my own certain knowledge, that as far back as the year 1773, they were busy in the plot you have so well described, and in the manner, and on the principle you have so truly represented. To this I can speak as a witness.” [13]

Burke was not a sensationalist but a pragmatic father of liberal conservatism. It is precisely because of his wisdom and perspicacity that he was able to see through the propaganda and manipulation of the “Philosophe sect” and lend his support to Barruel’s work in the face of a legion of detractors, most of whom were riding on the new paradigm of science, reason and its domination of Nature and mind.

Ten years later, in 1798, the Scottish scientist John Robison, published a treatise under the long winded title of: Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies which confirmed much of the information in Barruel’s volumes. The author himself commented on in correspondence with Robison: “Without knowing it, we have fought for the same cause with the same arms, and pursued the same course.” [14] Though these men constructed their critiques on the same theses of belief this should not have overshadowed the facts. Anyone paying close attention would have to agree that history has proved these men quite correct.

Edmund Burke’s comments were extraordinarily accurate on the nature of Pathocracy once the doors had been opened. He had commented that the general disorder would make the army “mutinous and full of faction,” and then a “popular general,” commanding the soldiery’s allegiance, would become “master of your assembly, the master of your whole republic.” [15] After the execution of Robespierre, the Jacobins had outlived their usefulness as rent-a-mob for the sect and fell into rapid decline. By 1795, the Directory had control of the French state until 1799, which saw the rise of next the phase of theFrench Revolution this time under Napoleon, two years after Burke’s death.


Napoleon Bonaparte pictured crossing the Alps on horseback. Public domain image of the First Consul crossing the Alps at the Col du Grand St. Bernard in 1801 by artist Jacques-Louis David

The question as to whether Napoleon Bonaparte was a freemason has never been answered. In one sense, the disdain for organised religion, monarchy, aristocracy, the introduction of legal reform and the abolition of serfdom fits into the designs of Illuminism. The unimaginable changes that this one individual brought to Europe and eventually the world, in such a rapid time frame would probably have made many a French Illuminist and freemason proud. Whilst seeing it as an opportunity for his own political ambitions, he had been a supporter of the Revolution since it was obvious that corruption and elitism was eating France alive.  Extremely aware of the volatile and darker forces at work he had kept his down, avoided too much attention and bided his time.

Napoleon was highly intelligent with a philosopher’s mind entirely in keeping with the Age of Reason and Enlightenment principles. Indeed, it could be said that he personified the mentality, brute force, and the simultaneous bringer of New life, death and destruction that rationalism wrought on the collective mind. A gifted soldier and tactician first and foremost, he was unlike the Illuminists in respect to his code of honour which was as unimpeachable as his belief in the State. The use of terror tactics was an anathema to Napoleon and while his ruthlessness in war is undeniable, war crimes of rape, pillage and unnecessary death he studiously avoided, having men shot who flouted those principles. Despite certain historians with axes to grind portraying the man as a monster, he was no such thing. Certainly, he presided over hundreds of thousands of deaths on his quest for a New Napoleonic Order, but he was a soldier through and through – a warrior you might say.


Bas-relief of Napoleon I in the chamber of the United States House of Repres,Center>entatives (wikipedia)

He was perhaps too much his own man and as such, pride was his downfall. One thing that authoritarian leaders have is a large – if not gargantuan – ego. It is for this reason that it is unlikely that Napoleon was anybody’s secret strategist, since he believed the power which imbued his actions came from a Divine source, even though he had little time for religious theology which grated on his scientific mind. In one of Napoleon’s own writings his final couplet reads: “God helps those who helps himself. I approve of that idea myself.” This is a good summary of the practical, independent nature of his own spirituality. Ever open to arrange events and opportunities like pieces on a chess board for multiple future “check-mates” it is therefore, more likely that Napoleon  placated and used freemasonry and Illuminism for his own ends. Or as an American freemason suggested in a lodge newsletter: “The only matter of certainty is that he countenanced the institution [of freemasonry] and astutely made it subserve his own purposes”. [16]

Andrew Robert’s comprehensive and fascinating biography of Napoleon only mentions freemasonry once. At almost 900 pages, and with access to over 30,000 personal letters of Napoleon’s at the author’s disposal, one would have imagined he would have gleaned some minor indications of a freemasonic/Illuminist influence in his plans – but none were apparent. What Robert’s does show is that freemasons “tended to be supporters of his modernization programmes – especially in Italy.” He described but one meeting on December 2nd, 1797 with Napoleon as a guest of honour at a masonic lodge in Nancy as he was on his way to Paris. [17]

Weishaupt’s Order of the Illuminati, its infiltration of freemasonry and its fuelling of the Enlightenment was well-known in the New American Republic. Head of freemasonry in the fledging nation, President George Washington was more than satisfied that “the doctrines of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism” had: “spread in the United States.” Nonetheless, he was rightly convinced that original freemasonry was not at fault, rather that it was the result of individuals insinuating themselves into the lodges with their: “diabolical tenets” and “pernicious principles” and were thus: “too evident to be questioned.” [18]


“Washington as a freemason. A full-length portrait of George Washington, standing, facing slightly right, in masonic attire, holding scroll and trowel.” (wikipedia)

Thomas Jefferson took an entirely different view. So much so, that that it was he who had acted as conduit for the Illuminati to enter the newly organized lodges of the “Scottish Rite” in New England. Jefferson defended Weishaupt saying:

“As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment … If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose.” [19]

Indeed, it is now difficult to know when benign freemasonry begins and Illuminism ends when the very foundation of the US constitution and political system was steeped in masonic rites.

Author David Livingston describes George Washington’s Dedication of the United States Capitol in September 18, 1793:

“Dressed in Masonic apron, the president placed a silver plate on the cornerstone and covered it with the Masonic symbols of corn, oil and wine. The plan of the city of Washington DC itself was designed by Freemason and architect Pierre Charles L’Enfante in the form of a pentagram, or five-pointed star. In 1848, in a Masonic ceremony, the cornerstone was laid of the Washington Monument, an obelisk or pillar, like those formerly dedicated to the dying gods of ancient Middle East. And, every president of the United States since Independence has purportedly been a 33rd degree Freemason.” [20]

What were freemasons to do when the nature of the pathogen was so embedded within the whole fraternity and with secrecy and psychological espionage as its by-word? The seeds of the downfall of “benevolent” freemasonry were always present within its structure. With such an ancient fraternity, its networks in every conceivable corner of the developed world and centred in all the Establishment outposts of law and governance, it was the perfect platform from which to attack society from within, or as President of the University of Yale Timothy Dwight observed, thereby introducing: “the ultimate objects of their union, … the overthrow of religion, government, and human society civil and domestic.” [21]

Another American President, John Quincy Adams offered this logical appraisal of the Illuminati and how such a perversion of its already questionable principles was always waiting to happen:

“… the society of Masons have discovered a science of government, or art of ruling society, peculiar to themselves, and unknown to all the other legislators and philosophers of the world; I mean not only the skill to know each other by marks or signs that no other persons can divine but the wonderful power of enabling and compelling all men, and I suppose all women, at all hours, to keep a secret. If this art can be applied, to set aside the ordinary maxims of society, and introduce politics and disobedience to government, and still keep the secret, it must be obvious that such science and such societies may be perverted to all the ill purposes which have been suspected …” [22]

Though these great men knew of the threat they had no solutions for countering it. As George Washington said, “truth or falsehood is immaterial to them, provided their objects are promoted,” and it is the same Hegelian tactic which cultivates friends and enemies alike in order to divide and conquer and thereby rule, just as it was then and as it remains today. [23] With the death of Washington in 1799 another great mind to counter the rot was lost and the suspicion of Illuminist infiltration slowly disappeared from view as the decades rolled away.

Weishaupt died in 1830 just as the Grand wave of Zionism and Communism was about to come crashing down on an unsuspecting world still reeling from the “romance” of the Revolution. The march to a World Revolution was very much still in the minds of the Elect.

A constant reiteration throughout series is the psychopaths’ code for doing “what thou wilt” by any means to satisfy the natural will of the archetypal Predator. The French revolutionary, writer and diplomat Comte de Mirabeau best summed up the keynote of this primal philosophy which has been handed down through history: “What matter the means as long as one arrives at the end?” – the ends justify the means. It was a belief that lies in the kernel of Illuminism and their antecedents and which has been used to justify all manner of horrors under the banner of civilised progress.[24]

Disempowerment of ordinary human beings is the key principle of any oligarchy or elite mind-set. As we will explore in subsequent posts, the Rockefeller’s “green” and GMO-based “revolutions,” the farmers and the poor become trapped in a spiral of costs which have negative consequences for both communities and their environment. They have been induced to believe the proffered pots of gold of agribusiness, having believed the multi-million dollar sales and marketing pitches. Similarly, we can see that the Reign of Terror was not directed against the aristocrats, many of whom were of the same mind-set and quite sympathetic to revolutionary goals. Part of the true objectives of the Elite was to unseat and disenfranchise the power base of the peasantry: the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for assignats. The independent farmer is a great threat to the global governance and World State ideologues because his own produce means personal capital, which gives him independence. Independent farmers and their communities thus present an impediment for World Revolution. Control of food is also power.

At first, the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia were convinced they had the beginnings of a World Revolution on their hands but were thwarted by the resistance of enclaves of independent farmers exploding the myth that such a form of control truly was for the worker or Proletariat. In fact, just as it was during the Reign of Terror, the Communist Party iconography of the tireless worker and devoted peasantry were systematically murdered and enslaved. The exact same patterns can be seen via latter-day corporatists and descendants of the “Age of Reason” who seek to crush the small farmers from India to America in order to wrest the reins of food management, distribution and production towards fully automated, genetically-modified, lab-based food. Consequently, a handful of conglomerates straddle agribusiness and biotech industries. This is what the Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America are really about.

All societal domains have been tainted with a familiar ideology which harks back to the tenets of Illuminist thinking, and the global occult body behind it. Signs of this anti-human perception of reality can be found in the Liberal Establishment’s  United Nations, government agencies, environmental activists and transhumanist thought, while American WASP and Euro-Synarchists’s cartel-capitalism and its debt-slavery is spread over the world care of the Structural Adjustment Team.

These two primary streams are converging to form another technological revolution in the guise of an emerging SMART society. For the Illuminists’ Age of Reason and Enlightenment visions, could they have imagined a better mnemonic acronym for their extraordinary success?


* I have to confess a personal interest in Edmund Burke since he is an ancestor of mine. He was an example of that thoroughly rare animal: the politician with scruples, integrity and conscience; an advocate of “human-heart” based conservatism who remained a believer of the State yes, but striving to retain a genuine benevolence in a period of immense social turmoil. Winston Churchill wrote this about him:

“On the one hand Burke is revealed as a foremost apostle of Liberty, on the other as the redoubtable champion of Authority. But a charge of political inconsistency applied to this life appears a mean and petty thing. History easily discerns the reasons and forces which actuated him, and the immense changes in the problems he was facing which evoked from the same profound mind and sincere spirit these entirely contrary manifestations. His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, and defending them from assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.”



[1] Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke online PDF version:
[2] Ibid. (p.8)
[3] ‘Terror in the French Revolution’ by Marisa Linton, Kingston University |…/filetodownload,20545,en.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Extract from a law introduced by the Committee for Public Safety, 17th September 1793.
[8] Execution Records,
[9] ‘Two Revolutions’ By Steve Bonta, The New American, October 12, 1998.
[10] The World Significance of the Russian Revolution by George Pitt-Rivers, Sacred Truth Publishing, With Perface by Oscar Levy, 1920, New Edition 2006.
[11] Ibid.
[12] The Blood of Toulouse by Maurice Magre, translated from French by James Bourne.
[13] Edmund Burke to Abbé Barruel, May 1, 1797, in Thomas W. Copeland, ed., The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, 10 Vols. (Chicago and Cambridge, 1958–1978), 9: 319–320.
[14] p.114; Enemies of the Enlightenment and the Making of Modernity by Darrin M. McMahon, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 | ISBN 978-0-19-513685-2
[15] op.cit Burke; Reflections.
[16] Ars Quatuor Coronatorum vol. viii (1895). ed. G. W. Speth. Margate: Lodge Quatuor Coronati, No. 2078, London. pp. 188-89.
[17] Roberts, Andrew, Napoleon the Great (2014) (Kindle edition ref: location 3181) published by Allen Lane.
[18] George Washington, shortly before he died, read John Robison’s book Proofs of a Conspiracy and immediately expressed his belief to the preacher who had sent it to him, that the designs of the Illuminati were infecting our country. Letter to Reverend G. W. Snyder, Writings of George Washington, (p 518-519).
[19] p. 134; Livingston, David,Terrorism & the Illuminati: A Three-Thousand-Year History Published by Progressive Press, 2011 | ISBN-10: 1615773061
[20] Ibid.
[21] Yale Professor and President of the University of Yale Timothy Dwight The American Mind: selections from the literature of the United States, p. 220. 1798.
[22] op. cit. Reed (p.138)
[23] The Writings of George Washington, vol. 33. August 26, 1794.
[24] Honre-Gabriel Riquetti, Comte de Mirabeau, ‘The Great Terror’ Paris, 1789.

World Revolution II: The Hive

“The human race will then become one family, and the world will be the dwelling of Rational Men.
– Adam Weishaupt

Continuing our look into the roots of the conspiracy coat-hanger of occult naughtiness: the Illuminati.

bee_on_honeycomb-1969pxIn the Weishaupt papers was a diagram which gives a fascinating insight into the megalomania of the professor and the structure of the Order, where emphasis is placed on the bee hive’s honeycomb system of organisation and it’s potential for secrecy and subterfuge, the same system upon which Communism and subsequent intelligence cells would operate. The fascination with bee symbolism was in evidence not only in freemasonry but in Royalty and in many ancient mystery cults. Once symbolising the ethics of cooperation, industriousness and mutual assistance the bee hive became the perfect representation of the Illuminati methods of concealment, the efficacy of the Hive Mind and group consciousness, this time working with materialist, scientific precision.

What is made clear in the papers is the perfection of such a template for espionage. If one hexagonal unit is discovered it can be temporarily lost or easily repaired without affecting the operations of the whole. At the centre of the diagram lies Weishaupt and written above in his own hand: “I have two immediately below me into whom I breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two others, and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on fire in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and operate on politics”. [1]

In 1777 Bavaria and Greater Germany had been host to a spread of Illuminism like fire in a corn-field. By then, France, Italy, Austria, Poland England and even America had succumbed to their influence:

In the third year of operation Weishaupt boasts to Zwack that they have more than a thousand initiates. … Knigge recruits an additional 500 … – mostly masons – very shortly after his initiation in 1780; and by the third edict against the Order the Illuminati were estimated to have between 2000 and 3000 members. [VS] John Robison compiles an interesting statistic concerning the different lodges and locations: Munich, Hesse (many), Ingolstadt, Buchenwerter, Frankfurt, Monpeliard, Eichstatt, Stuttgart (3), Hanover, Carlsruhe, Brunswick, Anspach, Calbe, Neuwied (2), Magdeburg, Mentz (2), Cassel, Poland (many), Osnabrueck, Turin, Weimar, England (8), Upper Saxony (several), Scotland (2), Austria (14), Warsaw (2), Westphalia (several), Deuxponts, Heidelberg, Cousel, Mannheim, Treves (2), Strasburg (5), Aix-la-Chappelle (2), Spire, Bartschied, Worms, Bahrenberg, Düsseldorf, Switzerland (many), Rome, Cologne, Naples, Hannibal, Bonn (4), Livonia (many), Ancona, Courland (many), Florence, Franken Dahl, France, Alsace (many), Holland (many), Vienna (4), Dresden (4), America (several). [4]

The extent of Weishaupt and the Illuminati’s reach can be seen in the governing principles and a detailed administrative plan comprising of Regents, Local Superiors, Provincials and National Directors. It was Weishaupt’s will that a National Director should reside in every country so that they may be: “… in direct communication with our Fathers, the first of whom holds the helm of the Order.” [5] (See below).

The documents show only a part of the area over which the Illuminati had spread, it is therefore reasonable to assume that Weishaupt was answerable to a director above him, another segment in the larger hive. Though judging by the ad hoc nature of Weishaupt’s feverish attempt to create the higher degrees, it seems the organisation may have taken on a momentum regardless. As we have seen, construction of the Order allowed for accidental detection which would damage only the segment in question without affecting the security of the whole. Thus, if there were higher directorates above Weishaupt which seems likely, then they were never discovered.


Professor Adam Weishaupt

I. The Nursery

  • 1. Preparatory Literary Essay
  • 2. Novitiate (Novice)
  • 3. Minerval (Brethren of Minerva, Academy of Illuminism)
  • 4. Illuminatus Minor

II. Symbolic Freemasonry

  • 1. Apprentice
  • 2. Fellow Craft
  • 3. Master
  • 4.  a. Scots Major Illuminatus | b. Scots Illuminatus Dirigens (Directory)

III. Mysteries

  • 1. Lesser
  • a. Presbyter, Priest, or Epopt  |  b. Prince or Regent
  • 2. Greater
  • a. Magus | b. Rex or King [6]

The aims, methods and organisation of the Order were all explained in the papers. It seems he preferred the label of “Illuminati” for his new network because of the “image of the sun radiating illumination to outer circles.” This was due to his desire for the Order to be updated into a cult of fire worship and: “… the whole philosophy of Zoroaster or of the old Parsees.” [7] Henceforth, the Order was always represented in correspondence between members as a circle with a dot in the centre, reflecting Weishaupt’s fascination with Eleusinian and Pythagorean Mysteries. [8]

What was clear from the correspondence between “Spartacus” and his brethren was that the established authority, nationhood and religion, must all be removed by all and any means necessary in order to make the way clear for a neo-feudal class of Elite citizens or “illuminates” who would then guide the world into a New Order or Golden era. Weishaupt states: “Princes and nations will disappear … Reason will be the only code of man”.

The elimination of nationhood and the Church was of primary importance to the Illuminati just as it is to so many globalist think-tanks and (not so) secret societies today. The channel by which Weishaupt was able to garner so much support was through his Machiavellian tactic of good intentions and the appearance of “progressive” ideas, a manoeuvre used to great effect today through the auspices of seemingly benign groups and individuals on the liberal-left who often act as a back-door of more oppressive policies. [9] Indeed, examples of Conservative and Neo-Conservative beliefs in numerous lobbying and think-tank outfits are obvious in their bullish, Leninist force, such as PNAC, National Endowment for Democracy, American Enterprise Institute etc.  But the more internationalist or liberal-left luminaries such as Amy Goodman, Juan Cole, Noam Chomsky or the late Howard Zinn act as effective gate-keepers of these beliefs – probably unconscious – which can often provide cover for strategies which have nothing to do with the betterment of humankind, socialist or otherwise. Just look at the ingredients put together to produce the Obamamania marketing …

(An example of this is an irrational dismissal of unanswered questions surrounding the events of September 11th World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks. Zinn and Chomsky both refused to engage on one of the most obvious and ambitious false flag operations of modern times, preferring to believe in the official conspiracy theory that any high school student could see is woefully inadequate).

Methods of subversion were visited upon the Church in trail-blazing fashion. Weishaupt ensured the employment of methods to swell the numbers of clergy entering the lower ranks of the Illuminati, thus giving the impression of support for the Church. One of these methods was to make up the idea of “a secret doctrine” which Jesus had incorporated in the Gospels and which could be discerned by those who had sufficient perception. The idea was that the New Religion of science and reason would sit side by side with a New World Religion based around Nature and summarily replace Christianity: “… when at last Reason becomes the religion of man so will the problem be solved”. Francis Bacon couldn’t have said it better. In private the Illuminists were having a grand old time.

Before his falling out with Weishaupt, Baron von Knigge as “Philo” wrote:


Adolph Franz Friedrich Ludwid Baron Von Knigge (1752 – 1796) Member of the Illuminati (wikipedia)

“We say then, Jesus wished to introduce no new religion, but only to restore natural religion and reason to their old rights … There are many passages in the Bible which can be made use of and explained, and so all quarrelling between the sects ceases if one can find a reasonable meaning in the teaching of Jesus, be it true or not … Now therefore that people see that we are the only real and true Christians, we can say a word more against priests and princes, but I have so managed that after previous tests I can receive pontiffs and kings in this degree. In the higher Mysteries we must then (a) disclose the pious fraud and (b) reveal from all writings the origin of all religious lies and their connexion…”

Spartacus: “You cannot imagine what sensation our Priest’s degree is arousing. The most wonderful thing is that great Protestant and reformed theologians who belong to Illuminism still believe that the religious teaching imparted in it contains the true and genuine spirit of the Christian religion. Oh, man, of what cannot you be persuaded! I never thought that I should become the founder of a new religion”. [10]

The God of Reason and the God of Nature was not only ideologically close to the precepts of radical materialism (Satanism) combined with a fusion of Judaic ideology over Marxist planning. The dismantling of organised, Christian religion was an essential part of that process just as it would be under Stalinism. Weishaupt was Jewish and these teachings were the illuminist creed. Does that mean the much loathed cliche of a Jewish conspiracy is true? There is no evidence that a high proportion of the Illuminati were Jewish or that the overriding goal was the imposition of a strictly Judaic form of occult subversion. What it does show that once again psychopaths and their sub-deviants used Judaism and some Jews as a very early as a tool for manipulation, as discussed. The Babylonian Kabbalah is an integral part of Jewish mysticism and freemasonic lore, so, it is not surprising that alternative offshoots like Illuminism had at their helm a Jew, since in the beginning standard freemasonry did not allow Jews into the order, except that is in the 19th Century with the emergence of the Order Of Zion.

To reiterate, the Bavarian Illuminati were like a masonic-terrorist group which disdained both religious and esoteric explorations. In Weishaupt’s Illuminism – perhaps oddly for some – there was no room at all for other forms of occultism, spiritualism, alchemy and any forms of “magic” suspicious as he was of Jesuit infiltration. Yet a mix of ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses Eleusis, fire worship, Zoroastrianism and Pythagorean thought he certainly favoured.

Progressing through the ranks of the Illuminati was akin to a process of mind control and brainwashing. Attaining wisdom or understanding didn’t feature, rather it was to be “remade into a totally loyal servant of a universal mission” and dare we say …”agent of change” on along revolutionary lines.[11] It was inferred that the novice would be under constant surveillance from his unknown superiors and was taught to inform on everyone around him, the logical conclusion being that his fellow Illuminists would be informing on him too. In this way trust was eroded in all things except the hierarchy of the Order. Terror was the teaching and application. In the end, he could trust no one. (Little wonder that such a template was introduced into the Russian Revolution to produce Stalinist Communism).

Everything possible was known about new recruits in order that they be “remade” and fixed to the path allotted to them without deviation. Blackmail, psychological warfare and exploitation featured heavily in Illuminist goals. Discovered with the papers were separate but related documents describing a variety of procedures, postulates, ideas and inventions, reading like a spy vs. spy rule-book. For the public of the day it was nothing less than macabre. This included the right to murder its own members if necessary; the description of a machine for the automatic destruction of secret papers; prescriptions for inducing abortion, the creation of poisonous perfumes, counterfeit seals and tracts in praise of atheism.[12]

The target to infiltrate and take over the Grand Orient Freemasonry was described in the Weishaupt papers in sufficient detail. He wrote: “I have succeeded in obtaining a profound glimpse into the secrets of the Freemasons; I know their whole aim and shall impart it all at the right time in one of the higher degrees”. With an almost gleeful rubbing of the hands Weishaupt instructs his Illuminist agents to “cover” themselves with Freemasonic principles the forerunner to being “undercover” as used in later communist espionage and counter-espionage activities. It remained the key principle of the Illuminati appropriation of freemasonry.

The director continued:

“If only the aim is achieved, it does not matter under what cover it takes place; and a cover is always necessary. For in concealment lies a great part of our strength. For this reason we must always cover ourselves with the name of another society. The lodges that are under Freemasonry are in the meantime the most suitable cloak for our high purpose . . . a society concealed in this manner cannot be worked against. . . In case of a prosecution or of treason the superiors cannot be discovered. . . We shall be shrouded in impenetrable darkness from spies and emissaries of other societies”. [13]

Prince Karl of the Royal House of Hesse and his membership of the Illuminati provided vital channels through which the Illuminati could flow, including the twin duchies and Office of Regent of Schleswig-Holstein and further links to the Danish court via his wife the Princess of Denmark, Mary Hanover and the King of Denmark and Frederik V Oldenburg. His associates were found in the British East India Co. and also included Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his son Nathan Mayer Rothschild. The House of Hesse would go from strength to strength harbouring Illuminati principles well into the future.

An even greater coup came from Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick, and freemasonry’s Grand Master of the Order of Strict Observance, who had joined the Illuminati after he had convened the most important Congress of the 18th Century. He was to realise his mistake over ten years later in that he had unwittingly unleashed a pathogen within the ranks of freemasonry. In 1794 he expressed his shock and sadness at being duped by instigators of the French Revolution and the need to “cut out to the roots the abuse and error” which he had allowed to infect the Order. A momentous decision to dissolve the most powerful body within Freemasonry would commence:


Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

“…. We see our edifice crumbling and covering the ground with ruins; we see destruction that our hands no longer arrest… A great sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself. This sect is known to everyone; its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations … They began by casting odium on religion … the plan they had formed for breaking all social ties and destroying all order was revealed in all their speeches and acts … they recruited apprentices of every rank and in every position; they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different intentions … Their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the government of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs. This is what has been done and is still being done. But we notice that princes and people are unaware how and by what means this is being accomplished. That is why we say to them in all frankness: the misuse of our Order … has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled today. You who have been initiated, you must join yourselves with us in raising your voices, so as to teach peoples and princes that the sectarians, the apostates of our Order, have alone been and will be the authors of present and future revolutions … So as to cut out to the roots the abuse and error, we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order…” [14]

Meantime, the events which led up to this point had seen the creation of Jacobin clubs by Illuminist agents who were the driving force of cruel executions and various atrocities which came to be known by the generic title of the “Great Terror”. There seems little doubt that the Illuminati was at the root of the French Revolution and the destruction that followed. This was known well before the fire of “revolution” raged out of control.

In 1789 the journalist and essayist Marquis Jean-Pierre de Luchet published his Essai sur la secte des Illuminés, denouncing the leaders of the Bavarian Illuminati, their control of freemasonry in Europe and in particular his native home of France. His predictions were perhaps one of the most accurate appraisals of the events that were to follow:

“Learn that there exists a conspiracy in favour of despotism against liberty, of in capacity against talent; of vice against virtue, of ignorance against enlightenment … This society aims at governing the world … Its object is universal domination … No such calamity has ever yet afflicted the world …” […] “Deluded people. You must understand that there exists a conspiracy in favor of despotism, and against liberty, of incapacity against talent, of vice against virtue, or ignorance against light! … Every species of error which afflicts the earth, every half-baked idea, every invention serves to fit the doctrines of the Illuminati … The aim is universal domination.”  [15]

The actions of Comte de Mirabeau, a close associate and confidante of Weishaupt,  provided compelling evidence that the French Revolution was planned and initiated by Illuminati mind control and Jacobean muscle. This was no natural uprising of a disgruntled peasantry and exploited workers – that was largely a romantic myth. Mirabeau’s philosophy of secular upheaval and universal revolution were enlisted for the Illuminist cause and proved to be extremely effective.

As an “outstanding orator” in the National Assembly who used “evocative language” to popularise Illuminist concepts, he was able to swell membership and indoctrinate many high level power-brokers in Paris. He was a member of the Jacobin Club and had a directorial hand in the encouragement of the horrors themselves. It was no coincidence that the incendiary language he used included the invention of phrases which passed into bloody history such as “revolutionary,” “counter-revolution”,  “counter-revolutionary and “The Great Revolution.” [16]


Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau

Mirabeau used the Illuminati’s embryonic techniques of propaganda and emotional trigger words, the equivalent of what is now known as psychological training in perception management, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and other forms of mind manipulation now used so extensively by the Establishment. Essentially, Mirabeau was a powerful spellbinder. You might say that he was an earlier incarnation of that much loathed figure and ultra-hypocrite Tony Blair whose oratory and persuasive appeals to the emotions managed to sway the more gullible members of parliament and public alike, regardless of the facts.

As is often the case with such people, the Count had been plagued by financial irregularities and spells in prison and had even worked as a secret agent long before he met Weishaupt. [17] His travels in Germany and fascination for the Prussian monarchy as well his own, culminated in his treatise: De la monarchie prussienne sous Frédéric le Grand (1788)  written with assistance of a Brunswick friend, Jakob Mauvillon.

In it Weishaupt and the Illuminati are mentioned by name:

“The Lodge Theodore de Bon Conseil at Munich, where there were a few men with brains and hearts, was tired of being tossed about by the vain promises and quarrels of Masonry. The heads resolved to graft on to their branch another secret association to which they gave the name of the Order of the Illuminés. They modelled it on the Society of Jesus, whilst proposing to themselves views diametrically opposed.” [18]

Drawing our attention to the fact that the above methods penned by Mirabeau matched perfectly with Weishaupt’s own correspondence, author and journalist Douglas Reed details a convergence of proof which suggests that had both been working together to unseat freemasonry and inaugurate a New Revolutionary Order, at least at the time of his writing in 1776, well over a decade before the revolution.

Reed explains:

“… his words suggest that the secret society of the Illuminati was founded with the express intention of gaining control of Freemasonry and of instigating and directing revolution through it. That Mirabeau was party to the whole undertaking from the start is suggested by the fact that the memoir of 1776 (the year in which the Illuminati were founded) ascribes to him the Illuminist “cover-name” of Arcesilas, so that he must have been a founder member, with Adam Weishaupt, and a leading Illuminate thereafter. Mirabeau, as the link between Weishaupt and the French Revolution, cannot be ignored. The editor of his Memoirs, M. Barthou, remarks that the “plan of reform” of 1776, found among Mirabeau’s papers, “resembles very much in certain parts the work accomplished later by the Constituent Assembly” (the revolutionary parliament of 1789). That is another way of saying that the work of the Constituent Assembly very much resembled Adam Weishaupt’s plan of 1776, when he and Mirabeau together were founding the Illuminati and planning together to gain control of Freemasonry.” [19]

It is highly probable that Weishaupt merely picked up the baton of occult belief circulating at the time and reinvented it according to his own pathologically narcissistic designs. As to whether he had “orders” from a group of Rosicrucian superiors remains probable, the House of Rothschild offered up as probable suspects by many authors. [20]Once freemasonry was co-opted with their enormous influence within the Establishment then it was only a matter of time before culture itself helped to sweep away the footprints of the Illuminati.

Though formed as a reaction against the Age of Enlightenment and the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the Romantic Movement was greatly influenced by the French Revolution. Poets such as Shelly, Byron, Coleridge and Wordsworth all latched onto the ideals of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” while choosing to ignore the Reign of Terror that followed in its wake. Come what may, this was to be an icon of a new dawn for those exploited workers who had suffered for so long. In the words of 19th Century historian Albert E. Hancock: “… the promise of a brighter day, the promise of regenerated man and regenerated earth. It was hailed with joy and acclamation by the oppressed, by the ardent lovers of humanity, by the poets, whose task it is to voice the human spirit.” [21]

This yearning to be free from the shackles of the psychopaths was a natural enough expression but it served to whitewash over the truth once again.



[1] Adam Weishaupt: A Human Devil by Gerald B. Winrod, Editor of The Defender Wichita, Kansas, 1935, Second Prim in j. Fourth Thousand.
[2] op. cit. Melanson. [Zoroastrianism: founded by the Prophet Zoroaster in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago and is seen as the first monotheistic religion. “Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence….” Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979 p.29]
[3] pp.94-95; Fire In the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, by James H. Billington, 1980 | ‘Illuminati Conspiracy Part One: Exegesis on the Available Evidence’ by Terry Melanson, Aug. 5th, 2005.
[4] Ibid.
[5] op. cit. Barruel (p.565)
[6] ‘Illuminati Conspiracy Part One: A Precise Exegesis on the Available Evidence’ by Terry Melanson, Aug. 5th, 2005.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9 op. cit. Webster (p.217)
[10] op. cit. Webster (p.219)
[11] Op. cit. Billington; (p.94)
[13] Op. cit. Webster (p.219)
[14] op. cit. Reed (p.138)
[15] Essai sur la secte des Illuminés, Paris, 1789. By Jean Pierre Louis de, Marquis de Luchet.
[16] op. cit. Billington (pp.17-20)
[17] ‘Honoré-Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau’ Encyclopaedia Britannica.
[18] De la monarchie prussienne sous Frédéric le Grand (1788) “The Prussian Monarchy Under Frederick the Great” by Honoré-Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau.
[19] Op. cit. Reed (p.148)
[20] Some believe that Weishaupt was commissioned by the Rothschilds to update the mystery schools and inject new energy into the ancient goals of global conquest. No concrete evidence has as yet, been forthcoming. See: Terrorism and the Illuminati By David Livingston; Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier; The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations by John Reeves; Illuminati: Fact or Fiction by Mark Dice and The Rise of the House of Rothschild By Egon Caesar Corti.
[21] p.7, 45-79; The French Revolution and the English Poets: A Study in Historical Criticism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1899.